I'll likely be dismissed as being naive, but if the the discussion concerns the material which has been oversighted, rightfully or not, then there's not a great deal that can be discussed in public until those with access to the logs and material can make a decision as to whether or not the oversight tool has been abused, and if so, what impact that's had on anything. If there is material that was abusively oversighted and it can be presented in public, then I'm sure we'll see it, along with any other relevant information.
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes fbellowes@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
The claimed "absence" is a fact. He hasn't made any edits since August 4th and has made no statement explaining his absence. He disappeared in conjunction with an RFA case in which he's named as a party.
This behaviour is very irresponsible for a "trusted admin" let alone one with various entitlements on the project.
It is reasonable to expect a modicum of accountability and transparency. That the ArbComm is discussing this behind closed doors, without any sort of mechanism for feedback by users or any sort of transparency does not enhance the credibility of the project, particularly at a time when it has come under severe criticism that has eroded our standing.
Frank
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l